[council] [GNSO-SubProPendingRecs-ST] Point of Order - Sub Pro Pending Recommendations Small Team Work

[Anne ICANN]

Thanks Greg.   As long as it is clear that no determination has been made
as to whether the ideas will constitute Policy Recommendations or
Implementation Guidance, then I think we will be square on the proper
procedure.

In this regard, a "framing" of the issues has been proposed and this would
be included in invitations to possible members of the "Plus" aspect of the
Small Team Plus.  We need to be careful to instruct staff not to telescope
this issue in the framing paper and not to refer to the ideas put forward
for Applicant Support as ideas that will fall into an "Implementation
Guidance" bucket.  That is yet to be determined.

Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024
anneicanngnso at gmail.com


On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 5:13 AM DiBiase, Gregory <dibiase at amazon.com> wrote:

> Thanks Anne.  Do you have any concerns with telling the Board that both a
> Supplemental Recommendation and Implementation Guidance is something the
> small team is considering and ultimately will bring to the broader council
> for their approval?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> *From:* Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 24, 2023 4:16 AM
> *To:* Paul McGrady <paul at elstermcgrady.com>
> *Cc:* DiBiase, Gregory <dibiase at amazon.com>; Tomslin Samme-Nlar <
> mesumbeslin at gmail.com>; COUNCIL at GNSO.ICANN.ORG;
> gnso-subpropendingrecs-st at icann.org
> *Subject:* RE: [EXTERNAL] [GNSO-SubProPendingRecs-ST] [council] Point of
> Order - Sub Pro Pending Recommendations Small Team Work
>
>
>
> *CAUTION*: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know
> the content is safe.
>
>
>
> P.S. - To put it very succinctly, a statement made to the Board that
> Council will be providing Implementation Guidance on Applicant Support is
> premature.  Only Council can determine whether or not that will be the
> case.  Accordingly, the statement made to the GAC was also premature.
>
>
>
> This bears very directly on Council small team transparency issues that
> have come to the forefront in recent community discussions.  Again, the
> distinction between Policy Recommendations and Implementation Guidance is
> an important one and the two should not be subject to "blurred lines."
>
>
>
> Anne
>
>
>
> Anne Aikman-Scalese
>
> GNSO Councilor
>
> NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024
>
> anneicanngnso at gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 3:31 AM Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks Greg.  As stated by Paul to the GAC, the Council will be providing
> ideas for the Board that will constitute Implementation Guidance.  I don't
> think the Council has decided that the Supplemental Recommendation
> developed by the Annex A Section 9 process will include Implementation
> Guidance.  The concern here is that the Recommendation itself will be
> watered down from the Recommendation approved from the Final Report and
> that Implementation Guidance is in fact not binding on the Board.  Thus,
> the small team , in its meeting with the Board, should not be telescoping a
> result that translates to Implementation Guidance when the members of the
> Small Team Plus may have different input from that and when the Council
> itself may want to opt to provide a Supplemental Recommendation which
> constitutes policy (as opposed to Implementation Guidance.)
>
>
>
> in contrast to the statement that was made before the GAC, it would be
> more accurate to say that there are several ideas that have been put
> forward, that these will be considered in the Small Team Plus
> deliberations, and that some of these may constitute Supplemental Policy
> Recommendations and some may constitute Implementation Guidance.  It should
> not be stated, ahead of Small Team Plus deliberations and a Council vote on
> the recommendations sent to Council from the Small Team Plus, that the
> ideas put forward will be developed will constitute mere "Implementation
> Guidance".  That is jumping the gun and taking over the role that belongs
> exclusively to Council.  It should be much more clear that very specific
> ideas to be examined in the process may end up being Policy
> Recommendations, not just Implementation Guidance.
>
>
>
> Anne
>
> Anne Aikman-Scalese
>
> GNSO Councilor
>
> NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024
>
> anneicanngnso at gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 2:28 AM Paul McGrady <paul at elstermcgrady.com>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks Greg.  That’s right.  It is likely that the Small Team Plus will
> have both a Supplemental Recommendation for Council to consider and also
> Implementation Guidance.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* DiBiase, Gregory <dibiase at amazon.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 24, 2023 4:19 AM
> *To:* Paul McGrady <paul at elstermcgrady.com>; Tomslin Samme-Nlar <
> mesumbeslin at gmail.com>; Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso at gmail.com>;
> COUNCIL at GNSO.ICANN.ORG
> *Cc:* gnso-subpropendingrecs-st at icann.org; Terri Agnew via cou. <
> council at gnso.icann.org>
> *Subject:* RE: [GNSO-SubProPendingRecs-ST] [council] Point of Order - Sub
> Pro Pending Recommendations Small Team Work
>
>
>
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> I understand the concern about stating definitively that Applicant Support
> would constitute mere "Implementation Guidance" rather than actual policy.
> But I’m not sure that’s the case.  My understanding was that outputs from
> the Small Team Plus that are sent to Council for consideration would likely
> consist of both a Supplemental Recommendation and Implementation
> Guidance. Is that accurate Paul?
>
>
>
> Anne and Tomslin- do you have any concerns with telling the Board that
> both a Supplemental Recommendation and Implementation Guidance is something
> the small team is considering and ultimately will bring to the broader
> council for their approval?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* GNSO-SubProPendingRecs-ST <
> gnso-subpropendingrecs-st-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Paul McGrady
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 24, 2023 1:42 AM
> *To:* Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin at gmail.com>; Anne ICANN <
> anneicanngnso at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* gnso-subpropendingrecs-st at icann.org; Terri Agnew via cou. <
> council at gnso.icann.org>
> *Subject:* RE: [EXTERNAL] [GNSO-SubProPendingRecs-ST] [council] Point of
> Order - Sub Pro Pending Recommendations Small Team Work
>
>
>
> *CAUTION*: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know
> the content is safe.
>
>
>
> Hi Anne and Tomslin,
>
>
>
> Thank you both for this.  If the goal is to *only* make a Supplemental
> Recommendation, that relegates us to *only* a Policy position and *no
> position on implementation*.  This is inconsistent with how the GNSO has
> been acting for many years.  Saying that we will have (1) a policy
> Supplemental Recommendation *AND* (2) implementation guidance is nothing
> radical at all.  Based on Anne’s email, I think we should take a few
> minutes to level set in our next call so that everyone can be reminded
> about the difference between policy recommendations and implementation
> guidance.  But I don’t think we need to take some decision before speaking
> with the Board on whether or not Council has the ability to issue both
> policy Supplemental Recommendations *and* Implementation Guidance.  The
> Council clearly does.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Tomslin
> Samme-Nlar via council
> *Sent:* Monday, October 23, 2023 8:00 PM
> *To:* Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* gnso-subpropendingrecs-st at icann.org; Terri Agnew via cou. <
> council at gnso.icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [council] [GNSO-SubProPendingRecs-ST] Point of Order - Sub
> Pro Pending Recommendations Small Team Work
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> Thank you, Anne for pointing this out. I too do not recall any agreement
> as to the approach  to tackle the Applicant Support ideas, other than that
> the 'idea' was floated on Sunday as an option.
>
>
>
> I think there is also agreement that all proposals/recommendations from
> the Small Team must be approved by the council before they become official
> council positions. In fact, during our meeting on Sunday, it was stressed
> that this be strictly adhered to, especially now that non-council members
> are being invites to form 'Small Team Plus".
>
>
>
> I therefore support Anne's request that we avoid socialising this idea of
> using implementation guidance and truncating Recommendation 17.2 as the way
> forward to address Board's concerns on Applicant support until the council
> approves it.
>
> Warmly,
> Tomslin
>
>
>
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2023, 22:43 Anne ICANN, <anneicanngnso at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Sub Pro Small Team,
>
>
>
> Today I heard our Sub Pro Small Team fearless leader Paul announce to the
> GAC that the ideas around Applicant Support that will be developed by the
> "Small Team Plus" will constitute "Implementation Guidance" for the Board.
> Of course in Sub Pro "speak", Implementation Guidance is a term of art that
> means the ideas will not constitute a policy recommendation as contemplated
> by Annex A, Section 9 which speaks of Supplemental Recommendations which
> are policy recommendations.  I commented on this in our Small Team meeting
> on Saturday.  (For clarity, "implementation Guidance" is a defined term in
> the Sub Pro Final Report and it is not obligatory if the Board finds that
> it is impractical.)
>
>
>
> Although Paul began to speak about Implementation Guidance in the small
> team meeting on Saturday, I don't recall a consensus being developed on
> this approach.  Perhaps more importantly, it strikes me that the decision
> as to whether the ideas to be put forward in the Supplemental
> Recommendation for Applicant Support will constitute Implementation
> Guidance (and not policy per se) is actually a question for Council and not
> for the Small Team alone to decide as this is in fact a policy matter.
>
>
>
> Perhaps Paul (and staff?) are thinking this is the only workable approach
> because of the many ideas that have been put forward.  The thought may be
> that no one idea (or merging of ideas into one consensus Supplemental
> Recommendation)  will be feasible.  Or that this process would take too
> long, if achievable at all?  These are all very real concerns.
>
>
>
> However, I do need to raise this Point of Order before the meeting with
> the Board where the Board Statement on Sub Pro Non-Adoption will be
> reviewed.  I believe that in respecting the boundaries of Small Team work,
> we would need authorization from Council to state to the Board that
> suggestions for providing expanded assistance in the realm of Applicant
> Support would constitute mere "Implementation Guidance" rather than actual
> policy Recommendations which are Supplemental in nature pursuant to Annex
> A, Section 9.
>
>
>
> Of course it would be easier for the Board to accept a truncated
> Recommendation 17.2 which is not specific  other than to say "expand
> Applicant Support".  Then we could tack on various Implementation Guidance
> ideas which do not actually bind the Board.  However, again I believe that
> if that is to be the approach taken by the Small Team, it should be
> approved in advance by Council.)
>
>
>
> As incoming Chair, Greg has already indicated in his presentation to
> Council his concern in relation to transparency of Council small team
> work.  So let's be very careful about this one as we are due to go before
> the Board to discuss the non-adopted items in the pending Sub Pro Final
> Report Recommendations.  Could we please discuss this further in our Closed
> Session?  I do not think the same statement made today to the GAC should be
> repeated before the Board without authorization from Council.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Anne
>
>
>
> Anne Aikman-Scalese
>
> GNSO Councilor
>
> NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024
>
> anneicanngnso at gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> GNSO-SubProPendingRecs-ST mailing list
> GNSO-SubProPendingRecs-ST at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-subpropendingrecs-st
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
> This email originated from outside the firm. Please use caution.
>
> This email originated from outside the firm. Please use caution.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20231024/aa52eb53/attachment-0001.html>